memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages needing attention
Articles that have good information, but need work for some reason *Warp drive. Valid information is mixed with non-canon parts here. The latter should be removed. -- Cid Highwind 04:08, 3 Apr 2004 (PST) **I think that has been resolved. Ottens 14:28, 18 Aug 2004 (CEST) *List of Federation shipyards. Multiple and/or contradicting nomenclature ("Fleet Yards" vs. "Ship Yards" etc.), check which one is valid. Should listing per Sector be kept or scrapped? -- Cid Highwind 14:04, 30 Apr 2004 (CEST) *Braxton. Strange indexing based on different timelines and VOY:Future's End, needs to be redone. Sources should be put at end of paragraphs too. -- Redge 23:32, 15 May 2004 (CEST) *List of Federation starship classes, (1), (2), (3). These four pages should probably be combined into the first. Alternatively, information on those pages should be checked for completeness. -- Cid Highwind 02:39, 21 May 2004 (CEST) *Pavel Chekov. Unsorted informations. Bad formatting. --BlueMars 22:11, May 25, 2004 (CEST) *Bolian. conjectural info is mixed with canon facts here.bad formatting. --BlueMars 20:48, Jun 12, 2004 (CEST) *Pages linked to in List of drugs and treatments. Most pages linked through here don't conform to style and are missing sources, references or any other clue as to where in Star Trek it was ever mentioned. -- Redge 20:45, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Most pages linked to by Government and Politics. A lot of articles linked through here mistake Race and Politic, giving the article the name of the government body and then writing about the species itself, or the other way around. -- Redge 23:24, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST) Articles that need 'expert' attention *Danube class Either a lot of good canon info, or entirely background and speculation. In the latter case, omeone with a good knowledge of Runabouts should take a look at it. -- Redge 14:57, 22 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Klingon mythology. Current information is being moved to the articles appropriate for each idea - needs replacing with a general overview. -- Michael Warren 09:32, 8 Apr 2004 (PDT) *Xindi Technology. Needs someone more familiar with late season 3 ENT than me to determine canon facts ;D. -- Michael Warren 17:38, 15 May 2004 (CEST) *Bajor. One of the most popular planets lacks ANY information. -- BlueMars, 25 May 2004 *Tholian Assembly. A minor stub with only Star Trek: Enterprise info. -- Dmsdbo 02:03, 10 Jul 2004 (CEST) *List of Federation starships. Well, not this article exactly, but all of the ships listed need to be checked by an expert. Where non-canon information has been used this should be indicated and placed in italics. Much of this information, such as the histories of the various ships and even their capabilities and dimensions, is derived from non-canon sources such as fan websites and play-by-e-mail groups. Alex Peckover 19:37, Jul 23, 2004 (CEST) ** USS Exeter. i caught that RPG edit shortly after i saw this list here. On the matter of fact-checking and streamlining ALL the articles, I've gone through a few.--Captain Mike K. Bartel 12:08, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST) ** I've given attention to several ship articles of late, USS Sovereign, USS Yeager, Yeager type, Curry type, USS Kongo, NCC-71325, VK Velikan, USS Drake, USS Bozeman, Constitution class, etc.. **If you see something that looks erroneous, but for whatever reason don't have the time or inclination to fix it, flag it in that articles talk page, possibly remove a passage to the article's talk page for another knowledgeable archivist to expand upon.. it's kind of daunting to sort through the whole shiplist one by one.. --Captain Mike K. Bartel *** It's a big problem for this site, IMHO. A lot of people seem to think that the rules about canon sources only apply if you aren't writing about a Starship, and only quote non-canon ones when they are asked how they know that a Whatever-class starship is X metres long or has Y photon torpedo launchers. Alex Peckover 16:00, Jul 29, 2004 (CEST) ****Well, keep in mind that a lot of decisions are made by consensus. If you have that type of difficulty, you can involve other archivists to the discusion, remove the text to a talk page for discussion, or add a msg:factualacc to their page, or simply nominate it for deletion. Most of the other archivists here are still unclear about where the canon policy 'ends' and 'begins' its one of those things we are helping to write. It never helps to fume about an edit you feel is wrong, it helps more to fix it or involve others in fixing it. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:13, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST)